Healthcare wtf, come on Republicans
This is why I hate both sides. The GOP don't want the healthcare, not because it would help America in the healthcare fight. Improve the quality of life for Americans. But because the democrats want it. It must be bad.
And so the democrats are going to give in, inch by inch until we end up with some crappy variation of a public healthcare option.
I am guessing we will end up with, you must have healthcare with an increase in taxes. But essentially the same system we have now.
July 30th, 2009 3:32am
Peoples get the governments they deserve. There's still a large proportion of americans who cannot and will not embrace ideas they deem as "socialist", even if it's for their own good.
>Peoples get the governments they deserve
I couldn't disagree more. People get the governments that are thrust upon them.
July 30th, 2009 7:40am
No Colm. If a large majority of the people really believe in something, they'll make the govt. enact it. Either the politicians will cave in because of the prevailing public opinion, or if it comes to that, an armed revolution will happen.
The reason why this doesn't happen is that we're taught that there are 2 major sides to the political spectrum, and we get to choose one. Divide to conquer.
Also, our culture dictates that if you can't afford something, you're not morally entitled to it. Can't afford health care? Too bad for you, get a better job.
That's right, the overweening goal is to GET RICH™. If you don't manage to GET RICH™, then something is wrong with you.
They never explain how an entire population can become rich, especially with corporations doing their best to underpay employees ... and where are these unlimited resources?
July 30th, 2009 8:56am
"where are these unlimited resources?"
Robots make them.
July 30th, 2009 8:57am
And by "robots", we currently mean "Asian slave labor".
July 30th, 2009 9:03am
This is what republicans refuse to acknowledge: we sustain our very comfortable way of life by standing on the shoulders of the rest of the planet. There is no moral value to capitalism, contrary to what the right wants to believe. It's not a meritocracy.
FP++. And what we're doing is raising the rest of the world's income and standard of living on our own spending. Meaning "outsourcing cheap labor" will eventually be a thing of the past.
"Cheap Labor" already is no longer available from Japan. South Korea has become more expensive. India and China are the latest countries to experience double-digit growth over the last 10 years.
It would be nice if at the same time we didn't deficit-spend ourselves into a third-world country.
July 30th, 2009 9:13am
> But because the democrats want it. It must be bad.
It works the other way too: if the Republicans had an idea, and the Democrats are in power and implement it, the Republicans would say "Hey, you can't do that! That was our idea!"
July 30th, 2009 9:16am
Not so much.
Basically, the Democrats have been trying to put in place a Progressive agenda since before Depression. The Republicans have been trying to prevent this the entire time, saying it's not Progressive it's Socialist and Communist.
The Progressive agenda tries to save the Free Market by regulating its worst abuses -- formation of Monopolies, abuse of Labor, dangerous working conditions, etc.
Republicans also use the mantra of "Reduce Entitlements!", by which they mean Social Security and Medicare/Medicaide. If they said "Reduce Social Security!" they'd be voted out of office immediately, since Social Security has been one of the most successful and popular programs ever created.
Progressives want to create a society that's well-fed, with good medical access, with opportunity for everyone, social mobility a possibility (typically through supporting access to education), fair wages, and minimal Government regulation of the Free Market.
Republicans see all of these things as threats to their wealth and freedom to use their wealth as they see fit. These things make Labor more expensive, in their point of view.
But the point is, it's not simple knee-jerk resistance to each other that's driving this. And you shouldn't reduce either side's motives to simple knee-jerk reactions, if you want to understand what's really going on.
July 30th, 2009 9:27am
But O'Reilly went to Harvard. He must be smart.
I recommend that you take the time to read Moral Politics.
>The GOP don't want the healthcare, not because it would help America in the healthcare fight.
The GOP stance is that government makes everything worse. As reagan phrased it: "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help'." Every discussion of obamacare and hillarycare that I've encountered at offices has had that phrase repeated at least once. And if you tried talking to some righties at your office, you'll hear that phrase repeated as well.
The book Moral Politics will help you understand why "they" don't want the things you're looking for. The differences start at the first principles and continually diverge.
Our current political system of "first past the post" and "winner take all" severely restricts the political options in the US into 2 gravity wells (or 2 attractors - if you prefer). Other parliamentary systems would result in a larger degree of choices.
The main argument I've been having at the office isn't about "how much of obamacare will get passed." My point is that none of it will get passed. Just like none of the hillarycare got passed. Lobbyists and special interest groups will guarantee that the insurance companies win this round of the battle just like last time.
July 30th, 2009 10:38am
The big differences between this time and last time are:
1. Hillary and Bill aren't involved in the policy. Hillary-care really did seem like a huge change to the existing approaches. Obama's approach seems a much more incremental change.
2. The Republicans were in charge of both the House and Senate, and quite willing to kill anything that came out of the White-House. Shoot, they even closed down the Government entirely for a few days in 1997. This time the Democrats are nominally in charge. I say "nominally", because you'll NEVER get Democrats to march in that lock-step rubber-stamp herd the Republicans demonstrated under Bush-II.
I'm thinking something WILL get passed this time (becausee of those two differences), but that something MUST have a "public option" on it. Without that, you're repeating the disasterous Massachusetts approach.
July 30th, 2009 10:47am
"The Republicans were in charge of both the House and Senate, "
Really. They were at charge until 1994, as a result of the hilarycare.
July 30th, 2009 12:08pm
No, they 'took over' in 1994, as a result of the Republican FUD campaign over the tax increases the Clinton White-house and the Democratic Congress put in place in 1992, which WERE to pay for Hillary-care, yes.
Since the tax increases remained, and Hillary-care failed, this led to a budget SURPLUS for the first time since 1963. Bush-II removed the tax increases, reduced taxes on the wealthy below that of Reagan, THEN started a war without raising taxes again, putting us in the boat we're in now.
July 30th, 2009 12:17pm
And they STAYED in charge, rubber-stamping Bush-II policies, until 2006, when the collective incompetence of the last 6 years finally came home to roost.
And even now, the Republicans that are left continue to espouse the failed policies of the Bush-II years -- Deregulate! Free Market! Government is hopelessly inefficient! Cut Taxes!
July 30th, 2009 12:19pm